-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
1/27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
INNOVATIVE DISPLAYTECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NOKIA CORPORATION and
NOKIA INC.,
Defendants.
C.A. No. ________________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel,
files this Complaint against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, Nokia).
THE PARTIES
1. Innovative Display Technologies LLC is a Texas limited liability company with itsprincipal place of business located at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75093.
2. Upon information and belief, Nokia Corporation is a corporation organized underthe laws of Finland with its principal place of business at Keilalahdentie 2-4, FIN-02150, Espoo,
Finland. Upon information and belief, Nokia Corporation may be served with process in Finland
pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents
in Civil or Commercial Matters.
3. Upon information and belief, Nokia Inc. is a corporation organized under the lawsof Delaware located at 6021 Connection Dr., Irving TX, 75039. Upon information and belief,
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 1
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
2/27
Nokia Inc. may be served with process by serving its registered agent, National Registered Agents,
Inc., 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, TX 75201.
4. Upon information and belief, Nokia has conducted and regularly conducts businesswithin this District, has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in this
District, and has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq.,including 35 U.S.C. 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
6. As further detailed herein, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Nokia Inc.Nokia Inc. is amenable to service of summons for this action. Furthermore, personal jurisdiction
over Nokia Inc. in this action comports with due process. Upon information and belief, Nokia Inc.
maintains offices at 6021 Connection Dr., Irving TX, 75039. Upon information and belief, Nokia
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nokia Corporation. Nokia Inc. has conducted and regularly
conducts business within the United States and this District. Nokia Inc. has purposefully availed
itself of the privileges of conducting business in the United States, and more specifically in Texas
and this District. Nokia Inc. has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas
by maintaining corporate offices in Texas and by placing infringing products into the stream of
commerce through an established distribution channel with the awareness and/or intent that they
will be purchased by consumers in this District.
7. Nokia Inc. directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, andothers), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents ships, distributes, offers for sale, and/or sells its
products in the United States and this District. Nokia Inc. has purposefully and voluntarily placed
one or more of its infringing products, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 2
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
3/27
awareness and/or intent that they will be purchased by consumers in this District. Nokia Inc.
knowingly and purposefully ships infringing products into this District through an established
distribution channel. These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by
consumers in this District. Upon information and belief, through those activities, Nokia Inc. has
committed the tort of patent infringement in this District and/or has induced others to commit
patent infringement in this District. Plaintiffs cause of action for patent infringement arises
directly from Nokia Inc.s activities in this District.
8. As further detailed herein, this Court has personal jurisdiction over NokiaCorporation. Nokia Corporation is amenable to service of summons for this action. Furthermore,
personal jurisdiction over Nokia Corporation in this action comports with due process. Nokia
Corporation has conducted and regularly conducts business within the United States and this
District. Nokia Corporation has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business
in the United States, and more specifically in Texas and this District. Nokia Corporation has sought
protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas by maintaining the offices of its United
States subsidiary in Texas and/or by placing infringing products into the stream of commerce
through an established distribution channel with the awareness and/or intent that they will be
purchased by consumers in this District.
9. Nokia Corporation directly or through intermediaries (including distributors,retailers, and others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents ships, distributes, offers for sale,
and/or sells its products in the United States and this District. Nokia Corporation has purposefully
and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products, as described below, into the stream
of commerce with the awareness and/or intent that they will be purchased by consumers in this
District. Nokia Corporation knowingly and purposefully ships infringing products into and within
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 3
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
4/27
this District through an established distribution channel. These infringing products have been and
continue to be purchased by consumers in this District. Upon information and belief, through those
activities, Nokia Corporation has committed the tort of patent infringement in this District and/or
has induced others to commit patent infringement in this District. Plaintiffs cause of action for
patent infringement arises directly from Nokia Corporations activities in this District.
10. Venue is proper in this Court according to the venue provisions set forth by 28U.S.C. 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b). Nokia is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and
therefore is deemed to reside in this District for purposes of venue. Upon information and belief,
Nokia has committed acts within this judicial District giving rise to this action and does business
in this District, including but not limited to making sales in this District, providing service and
support to their respective customers in this District, and/or operating an interactive website,
available to persons in this District that advertises, markets, and/or offers for sale infringing
products.
BACKGROUND
A. The Patents-In-Suit.11. U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 titled Light Emitting Panel Assemblies (the 547
patent) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 29, 2004,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the 547 patent. The
547 patent has been assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff holds all rights, title, and interest in the
547 patent, including the right to collect and receive damages for past, present and future
infringements. A true and correct copy of the 547 patent is attached as Exhibit A and made a part
hereof.
12. U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 titled Light Emitting Panel Assemblies (the 194patent) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 27,
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 4
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
5/27
2007, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the 194 patent.
The 194 patent has been assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff holds all rights, title, and interest in
the 194 patent, including the right to collect and receive damages for past, present and future
infringements. A true and correct copy of the 194 patent is attached as Exhibit B and made a part
hereof.
13. U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 titled Light Emitting Panel Assemblies (the 177patent) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 10, 2008,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the 177 patent. The
177 patent has been assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff holds all rights, title, and interest in the
177 patent, including the right to collect and receive damages for past, present and future
infringements. A true and correct copy of the 177 patent is attached as Exhibit C and made a part
hereof.
14. U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 titled Light Emitting Panel Assemblies (the 660patent) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 29, 2008,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the 660 patent. The
660 patent has been assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff holds all rights, title, and interest in the
660 patent, including the right to collect and receive damages for past, present and future
infringements. A true and correct copy of the 660 patent is attached as Exhibit D and made a part
hereof.
15. U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 titled Light Emitting Panel Assemblies (the 974patent) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 14, 2008,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the 974 patent. The
974 patent has been assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff holds all rights, title, and interest in the
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 5
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
6/27
974 patent, including the right to collect and receive damages for past, present and future
infringements. A true and correct copy of the 974 patent is attached as Exhibit E and made a part
hereof.
16. U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 titled Light Emitting Panel Assemblies (the 370patent) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 26, 2009,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the 370 patent. The
370 patent has been assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff holds all rights, title, and interest in the
370 patent, including the right to collect and receive damages for past, present and future
infringements. A true and correct copy of the 370 patent is attached as Exhibit F and made a part
hereof.
17. U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816 titled Light Emitting Panel Assemblies (the 816patent) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 10, 2012,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the 816 patent. The
816 patent has been assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff holds all rights, title, and interest in the
816 patent, including the right to collect and receive damages for past, present and future
infringements. A true and correct copy of the 816 patent is attached as Exhibit G and made a part
hereof.
18. Jeffery R. Parker is the inventor of the 547 patent, the 194 patent, the 177 patent,the 660 patent, the 974 patent, the 370 patent, and the 816 patent (collectively, the patents-in-
suit). In total, he is a named inventor on over eighty-five (85) U.S. patents.
B. Nokias Infringing Conduct.19. Upon information and belief, Nokia makes, uses, offers to sell, and/or sells within,
and/or imports into the United States display products that incorporate the fundamental
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 6
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
7/27
technologies covered by the patents-in-suit. Upon information and belief, the infringing display
products include, but are not limited to, mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920
mobile phones).
20. By incorporating the fundamental inventions covered by the patents-in-suit, Nokiacan make improved products, including but not limited to, longer displays, thinner displays, and/or
displays with a higher light output, a more uniform light output, and/or a lower power requirement.
21. Upon information and belief, third-party distributors purchase and have purchasedNokias infringing display products for sale or importation into the United States, including this
District. Upon information and belief, third-party consumers use and have used Nokias infringing
display products in the United States, including this District.
22. Upon information and belief, Nokia has purchased infringing display products thatare made, used, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States by third party
manufacturers, distributors, and/or importers.
COUNT I
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547
23. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-22 asthough fully set forth herein.
24. The 547 patent is valid and enforceable.25. Nokia has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the 547 patent.26. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by
35 U.S.C. 287, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual
or constructive notice to Nokia of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff
surmises that any express licensees of the 547 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 287 by placing a notice of the 547 patent on all goods made, offered
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 7
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
8/27
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
27. Upon information and belief, Nokia has been and is directly infringing under 35U.S.C. 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), the 547 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party manufacturers, distributors, and/or consumers
(directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the
United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 547 patent, including but not limited to
mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), their display
components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Nokia that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 547 patent.
28. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Nokiasproducts that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 547 patent, including but
not limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), also
directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the
547 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing display products in this District and
elsewhere in the United States.
29. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, andimporters that sell display products to Nokia that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the 547 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the 547 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing
products in the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 8
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
9/27
30. Upon information and belief, Nokia had knowledge of the 547 patent and itsinfringing conduct at least since October 3, 2012, when Nokia was formally placed on notice of
its infringement.
31. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date when Nokiawas formally placed on notice of its infringement, Nokia has actively induced, under U.S.C.
271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers to directly infringe one
or more claims of the 547 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the above-mentioned date,
Nokia does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 547 patent. Upon information and belief, Nokia intends to cause infringement
by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers. Nokia has taken
affirmative steps to induce their infringement by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote
the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products
into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in
conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or
manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical
support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
32. Upon information and belief, Nokias acts of infringement of the 547 patent havebeen willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Nokia has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the 547 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), and the
objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 9
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
10/27
33. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Nokia hasencroached on the exclusive rights of Plaintiff and its licensees to practice the 547 patent, for
which Plaintiff is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT II
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194
34. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-33 asthough fully set forth herein.
35. The 194 patent is valid and enforceable.36. Nokia has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the 194 patent.37. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by
35 U.S.C. 287, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual
or constructive notice to Nokia of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff
surmises that any express licensees of the 194 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 287 by placing a notice of the 194 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
38. Upon information and belief, Nokia has been and is directly infringing under 35U.S.C. 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), the 194 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party manufacturers, distributors, and/or consumers
(directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the
United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 194 patent, including but not limited to
mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), their display
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 10
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
11/27
components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Nokia that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 194 patent.
39. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Nokiasproducts that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 194 patent, including but
not limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), also
directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the
194 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing display products in this District and
elsewhere in the United States.
40.
Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and
importers that sell display products to Nokia that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the 194 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the 194 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing
products in the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
41. Upon information and belief, Nokia had knowledge of the 194 patent and itsinfringing conduct at least since October 3, 2012, when Nokia was formally placed on notice of
its infringement.
42. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date when Nokiawas formally placed on notice of its infringement, Nokia has actively induced, under U.S.C.
271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers to directly infringe one
or more claims of the 194 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the above-mentioned date,
Nokia does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 194 patent. Upon information and belief, Nokia intends to cause infringement
by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers. Nokia has taken
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 11
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
12/27
affirmative steps to induce their infringement by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote
the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products
into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in
conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or
manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical
support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
43. Upon information and belief, Nokias acts of infringement of the 194 patent havebeen willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Nokia has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the 194 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), and the
objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
44. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Nokia hasencroached on the exclusive rights of Plaintiff and its licensees to practice the 194 patent, for
which Plaintiff is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT III
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177
45. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-44 asthough fully set forth herein.
46. The 177 patent is valid and enforceable.47. Nokia has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the 177 patent.48. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by
35 U.S.C. 287, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual
or constructive notice to Nokia of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 12
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
13/27
surmises that any express licensees of the 177 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 287 by placing a notice of the 177 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
49. Upon information and belief, Nokia has been and is directly infringing under 35U.S.C. 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), the 177 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party manufacturers, distributors, and/or consumers
(directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the
United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 177 patent, including but not limited to
mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), their display
components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Nokia that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 177 patent.
50. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Nokiasproducts that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 177 patent, including but
not limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), also
directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the
177 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing display products in this District and
elsewhere in the United States.
51. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, andimporters that sell display products to Nokia that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the 177 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 13
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
14/27
under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the 177 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing
products in the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
52. Upon information and belief, Nokia had knowledge of the 177 patent and itsinfringing conduct at least since October 3, 2012, when Nokia was formally placed on notice of
its infringement.
53. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date when Nokiawas formally placed on notice of its infringement, Nokia has actively induced, under U.S.C.
271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers to directly infringe one
or more claims of the 177 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the above-mentioned date,
Nokia does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 177 patent. Upon information and belief, Nokia intends to cause infringement
by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers. Nokia has taken
affirmative steps to induce their infringement by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote
the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products
into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in
conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or
manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical
support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
54. Upon information and belief, Nokias acts of infringement of the 177 patent havebeen willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Nokia has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the 177 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 14
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
15/27
limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), and the
objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
55. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Nokia hasencroached on the exclusive rights of Plaintiff and its licensees to practice the 177 patent, for
which Plaintiff is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT IV
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660
56. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-55 asthough fully set forth herein.
57. The 660 patent is valid and enforceable.58. Nokia has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the 660 patent.59. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by
35 U.S.C. 287, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual
or constructive notice to Nokia of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff
surmises that any express licensees of the 660 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 287 by placing a notice of the 660 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
60. Upon information and belief, Nokia has been and is directly infringing under 35U.S.C. 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), the 660 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party manufacturers, distributors, and/or consumers
(directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 15
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
16/27
United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 660 patent, including but not limited to
mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), their display
components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Nokia that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 660 patent.
61. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Nokiasproducts that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 660 patent, including but
not limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), also
directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the
660 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing display products in this District and
elsewhere in the United States.
62. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, andimporters that sell display products to Nokia that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the 660 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the 660 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing
products in the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
63. Upon information and belief, Nokia had knowledge of the 660 patent and itsinfringing conduct at least since October 3, 2012, when Nokia was formally placed on notice of
its infringement.
64. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date when Nokiawas formally placed on notice of its infringement, Nokia has actively induced, under U.S.C.
271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers to directly infringe one
or more claims of the 660 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the above-mentioned date,
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 16
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
17/27
Nokia does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 660 patent. Upon information and belief, Nokia intends to cause infringement
by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers. Nokia has taken
affirmative steps to induce their infringement by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote
the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products
into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in
conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or
manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical
support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
65. Upon information and belief, Nokias acts of infringement of the 660 patent havebeen willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Nokia has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the 660 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), and the
objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
66. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Nokia hasencroached on the exclusive rights of Plaintiff and its licensees to practice the 660 patent, for
which Plaintiff is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT V
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
67. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-66 asthough fully set forth herein.
68. The 974 patent is valid and enforceable.69. Nokia has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the 974 patent.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 17
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
18/27
70. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by35 U.S.C. 287, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual
or constructive notice to Nokia of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff
surmises that any express licensees of the 974 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 287 by placing a notice of the 974 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
71. Upon information and belief, Nokia has been and is directly infringing under 35U.S.C. 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), the 974 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party manufacturers, distributors, and/or consumers
(directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the
United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 974 patent, including but not limited to
mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), their display
components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Nokia that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 974 patent.
72. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Nokiasproducts that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 974 patent, including but
not limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), also
directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the
974 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing display products in this District and
elsewhere in the United States.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 18
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
19/27
73. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, andimporters that sell display products to Nokia that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the 974 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the 974 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing
products in the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
74. Upon information and belief, Nokia had knowledge of the 974 patent and itsinfringing conduct at least since October 3, 2012, when Nokia was formally placed on notice of
its infringement.
75.
Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date when Nokia
was formally placed on notice of its infringement, Nokia has actively induced, under U.S.C.
271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers to directly infringe one
or more claims of the 974 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the above-mentioned date,
Nokia does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 974 patent. Upon information and belief, Nokia intends to cause infringement
by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers. Nokia has taken
affirmative steps to induce their infringement by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote
the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products
into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in
conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or
manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical
support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
76. Upon information and belief, Nokias acts of infringement of the 974 patent havebeen willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Nokia has acted
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 19
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
20/27
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the 974 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), and the
objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
77. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Nokia hasencroached on the exclusive rights of Plaintiff and its licensees to practice the 974 patent, for
which Plaintiff is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT VI
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
78. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-77 asthough fully set forth herein.
79. The 370 patent is valid and enforceable.80. Nokia has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the 370 patent.81. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by
35 U.S.C. 287, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual
or constructive notice to Nokia of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff
surmises that any express licensees of the 370 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 287 by placing a notice of the 370 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
82. Upon information and belief, Nokia has been and is directly infringing under 35U.S.C. 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), the 370 patent by making,
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 20
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
21/27
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party manufacturers, distributors, and/or consumers
(directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the
United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 370 patent, including but not limited to
mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), their display
components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Nokia that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 370 patent.
83. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Nokiasproducts that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 370 patent, including but
not limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), also
directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the
370 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing display products in this District and
elsewhere in the United States.
84. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, andimporters that sell display products to Nokia that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the 370 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the 370 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing
products in the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
85. Upon information and belief, Nokia had knowledge of the 370 patent and itsinfringing conduct at least since October 3, 2012, when Nokia was formally placed on notice of
its infringement.
86. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date when Nokiawas formally placed on notice of its infringement, Nokia has actively induced, under U.S.C.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 21
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
22/27
271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers to directly infringe one
or more claims of the 370 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the above-mentioned date,
Nokia does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 370 patent. Upon information and belief, Nokia intends to cause infringement
by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers. Nokia has taken
affirmative steps to induce their infringement by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote
the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products
into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in
conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or
manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical
support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
87. Upon information and belief, Nokias acts of infringement of the 370 patent havebeen willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Nokia has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the 370 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), and the
objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
88. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Nokia hasencroached on the exclusive rights of Plaintiff and its licensees to practice the 370 patent, for
which Plaintiff is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 22
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
23/27
COUNT VII
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816
89. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-88 asthough fully set forth herein.
90. The 816 patent is valid and enforceable.91. Nokia has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the 816 patent.92. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by
35 U.S.C. 287, Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual
or constructive notice to Nokia of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff
surmises that any express licensees of the 816 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 287 by placing a notice of the 816 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
93. Upon information and belief, Nokia has been and is directly infringing under 35U.S.C. 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), the 816 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party manufacturers, distributors, and/or consumers
(directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the
United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 816 patent, including but not limited to
mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), their display
components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Nokia that
include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 816 patent.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 23
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
24/27
94. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Nokiasproducts that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the 816 patent, including but
not limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), also
directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the
816 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing display products in this District and
elsewhere in the United States.
95. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, andimporters that sell display products to Nokia that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the 816 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), the 816 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling infringing
products in the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
96. Upon information and belief, Nokia had knowledge of the application that issuedinto the 816 patent and its infringing conduct at least since October 3, 2012, when Nokia was
formally placed on notice of its infringement.
97. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date when Nokiawas formally placed on notice of its infringement, Nokia has actively induced, under U.S.C.
271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers to directly infringe one
or more claims of the 816 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the above-mentioned date,
Nokia does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute
infringement of the 816 patent. Upon information and belief, Nokia intends to cause infringement
by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers. Nokia has taken
affirmative steps to induce their infringement by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote
the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 24
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
25/27
into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in
conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or
manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical
support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
98. Upon information and belief, Nokias acts of infringement of the 816 patent havebeen willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Nokia has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the 816 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to mobile phones (e.g., the Nokia Lumia 822 and Lumia 920 mobile phones), and the
objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
99. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Nokia hasencroached on the exclusive rights of Plaintiff and its licensees to practice the 816 patent, for
which Plaintiff is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
CONCLUSION
100. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Nokia the damages sustained by Plaintiff as aresult of Nokias wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less
than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court.
101. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys fees, costs, and expenses in theprosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary
attorneys fees, costs, and expenses.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 25
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
26/27
JURY DEMAND
102. Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
103. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against Nokia, andthat the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief:
A. A judgment that Nokia has infringed the patents-in-suit as alleged herein, directlyand/or indirectly by way of inducing infringement of such patents;
B.
A judgment for an accounting of all damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of
the acts of infringement by Nokia;
C. A judgment and order requiring Nokia to pay Plaintiff damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, including up to treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35
U.S.C. 284, and any royalties determined to be appropriate;
D. A permanent injunction enjoining Nokia and its officers, directors, agents, servants,employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting
in concert or privity with them from direct and/or indirect infringement of the
patents-in-suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283;
E. A judgment and order requiring Nokia to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages awarded;
F. A judgment and order finding this to be an exceptional case and requiring Nokia topay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and attorneys fees as
provided by 35 U.S.C. 285; and
G. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PAGE 26
-
7/27/2019 Innovative Display Technologies v. Nokia Et. Al.
27/27
Dated: October 1, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Jeffrey R. BragaloneJeffrey R. Bragalone (lead attorney)
Texas Bar No. 02855775
Patrick J. ConroyTexas Bar No. 24012448
Justin B. Kimble
Texas Bar No. 24036909
T. William Kennedy, Jr.Texas Bar No. 24055771
Daniel F. Olejko
Pennsylvania Bar No. 205512
Bragalone Conroy PC
2200 Ross Avenue
Suite 4500W
Dallas, TX 75201Tel: (214) 785-6671
Fax: (214) 785-6680
[email protected]@bcpc-law.com
[email protected]@bcpc-law.com
T. John Ward Jr.Texas Bar No. 00794818
Claire Abernathy Henry
Texas Bar No. 24053063
Ward & Smith Law Firm1127 Judson Road, Suite 220
Longview, TX 75601
Tel: (903) 757-6400Fax: (903) 757.2323
Attorneys for Plaintiff
INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
TECHNOLOGIES LLC